the differences of DISTRIBUTIVE NEGOTIATION and INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION

  

Distributive negotiation is a negotiation that gives benefit to one side as long as another side agrees to the agreement that they have made.  Distributive negotiation is known with forcing distributive. In this negotiation at least, there is one party who will be win or lose so that an achievable goal to have the distribution of which is certain or fixed. For distributive negotiation, the relationship among the parties is not really important. Every party in this kind of negotiation has a strong goal to win and closed toward possibility and other opportunities. Therefore, the time of negotiation will be done as soon as possible and in the interval time as relative short.

You can use this kind of negotiation when you are knowing your standing is powerful in here possibility to be winner is really strong and you didn’t care about the relationship with another party after negotiation is done. 

For example

In the Case of huge and excessed exploitation of Indonesia marine and fisheries in which it threatens the marine ecosystem between Indonesia and other countries as well as unbenefitting indonesia, such as smuggling and stealing in the Malacca Strait to dredge the fish in the region adversely impacted to indonesia. So here ,indonesia government is  much better used the distributive negotiation over the illegal fishermen of other countries.

Integrative negotiation, this kind of negotiation is involving the coorporation both parties for achieving the agreement that will be benefiting both of parties. So that’s why, this kind of negotiation is known a problem solving. Different with distributive negotiation, this kind of negotiation will be resulting win – win for both of parties in which its result in the form of many choices and collaboration, The relationship between the negotiators after the negotiation is very important that during the negotiations, the two parties to be open, communicative, creative, and have a willingness to change. The time required to conduct these negotiations longer than distributive negotiation.

You can use this kind of negotiation when you are know that you still need another party. You have less powerful position in here. And you’re still concerning the relationship among both of you after negotiation process.

For example:

In this type of negotiation, the parties involved will work together to achieve maximum profitability by integrating their interests. In the case, this negotiation is like when the ten country of ASEAN plus China agreed to establish the ASEAN Economic Community because every single country need one another. Indonesia and Australia trade in term of Importing  beef and cottons in which in here both of parties Indonesia need to use integrative negotiation because Indonesia still need a hand from Australia in providing the beef with cheaper price and Australia need a hand from Indonesia to providing the cottons .  Another example of integrative negotiation is problem solving Iran with the western country to reach an agreement to request Iran disarm nuclear weapons in effort western country to withdraw for embargo economic which led to the peace, in the end of the day IRAN make active and exporting its oil to western countries  again and as well as many westerners can invest their money again in Iran productive sectors.